There are so many issues with this - If the "rules" for compensation for companies taking government money had been written better in the beginning they wouldn't be addressing this to begin with. But as with many government initiatives they write in the most ambiguous language possible then make it fit later. I am not for a moment saying that some executives weren't making the most of their situations and taking compensation beyond what their bottom line dictated but is that their fault or the fault of those that put them in those positions?
I've seen several salary numbers that make me wonder what they do for that type of money, but exactly when did it become the governments job to determine what fair compensation is for running companies worth billions of dollars?
It's no wonder so many companies who initially thought the TARP money was a good thing are trying desperately, but not successfully, to give it back.
It seems our executive branch of government is reaching way beyond their power here.
From the Wall Street Journal
WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration plans to appoint a "Special Master for Compensation" to ensure that companies receiving federal bailout funds are abiding by executive-pay guidelines, according to people familiar with the matter.
The administration is expected to name Kenneth Feinberg, who oversaw the federal government's compensation fund for victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, to act as a pay czar for the Treasury Department, these people said.
Mr. Feinberg's appointment could be announced as early as next week (the week of June 8th), when the administration is expected to release executive-compensation guidelines for firms receiving aid from the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program. Those companies, which include banks, insurers and auto makers, are subject to a host of compensation restrictions imposed by the Bush and Obama administrations and by Congress.
Wall Street has been anxiously awaiting more details on how the rules will be applied. "The law is confusing and a bit ambiguous, ... continue reading this